Abortion: Is Common Ground Possible?

It took three debates but one of the most divisive issues in America was discussed: abortion. Though there are signs of "fatigue," among many, even among Evangelicals, abortion remains to be a definitive issue of our time. For the past 35 years, the two sides have raged over the wrong of the other. In recent years, however, there has been a growing number of Americans that are seeking to reach "common ground" between the two sides.

But is common ground possible? If the two sides could come together and make up, it would stand as one of the most incredible reconciling actions ever in the history of the world. Politics would never be the same. The two sides are directly opposed to each other on this issue. The reason abortion is so critical is because it the offspring of one's worldview.

On the one hand are those that hold that all life is sacred. Believing in the sanctity of life means that God, who is Creator of all life, creates life not for the heck of it, but for His own will and purposes. The fight over life, then, become an inherently religious one. Belief in a God who creates life in His image means that all life is worthy of life. Life is a gift from God, and that gift must not be taken away. Therefore, we must defend life at all cost.

But it even goes deeper than that. The human conscience is at stake here. A culture that rationalizes murder at the beginning of life can easily rationalize murder throughout all stages of life. Take issues like euthanasia and infanticide for example. If life is no longer sacred, then culture defines who is worthy of living. If culture becomes the arbiter of "life worthy of life," then culture rewinds to the 1940's and we become Nazi Germany. Therefore, defending life at conception means more than just overturning a court decision, it defines the very direction of our country. Man is not the arbiter of life, God is.

On the other end, pro-choicers affirm a woman's autonomy over her own body. Government has no right telling a woman what she can and cannot do with what is hers. Freedom demands it. Culture and government cannot have the right to assert religious views on those that do not hold to them. There is, the Supreme Court found, a "right to privacy."

Those who hold to this conviction usually do not seek abortion, but honestly want to limit the number of aborted infants. To do this, they seek the underlying social and economic causes: poverty, singleness, rape, incest, the child might be born with a handicap thus making it harder for them to be raised, the mother's career might be at stake, the mother might be young, inexperienced, not ready, etc.

The tracing of these causes leads to the issue of the quality of life for the infant. With the world being overpopulated, is it not wise to limit the born to those that are wanted and have the best chance of happiness? It is not necessarily that the life is not sacred, but that sometimes it might be best to end the pregnancy for the couple, the woman, and for society as a whole. Being pro-choice represents liberation from religious oppression and the right to have control over one's own body.

These are two very different worldviews. One says that all life is worthy of living despite the social and economic causes of pregnancy and sees the dangers of such a trend, the other warns of the dangers and uncertainties that raising children might bring. Pro-lifers ask, "what about the child?" Pro-choicers ask, "what about the mother?"

It is hard to imagine these two worldviews could be reconciled. This is why it remains the contentious issue that it does. Both sides hold dear to their worldview and don't seem to want to change their minds. Murder is murder. Choice is choice. There is no reconciling these two.

Or is there? There is a growing number of people, especially among more moderate Evangelicals, that believe that they have found the great compromise: Reduction.

Perhaps one of the major spearheads of this "compromise" is Emerging Church leader Jim Wallis . After watching the recent, and last, Presidential debate between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain, Wallis is believes he is beginning to see glimmers of hope that this compromise might be reached.

After quoting the two candidates in the debate on this issue, Wallis concludes with the fol owing:

There are indeed profound moral issues involved in the decisions to have or not to have an abortion, and most Americans believe that. Most also believe the abortion rate in America is far too high but are hesitant to completely deny the difficult choice to have one.

Abortion reduction is the clear common ground that could unite the pro-choice and pro-life polarities and bring us together to find some real solutions and finally see some results. John McCain and Barack Obama last evening opened up the possibility of finding some new common ground in reducing abortions, reflecting the 2008 Democratic and Republican platforms. There is also now some movement in the Congress with pro-life and pro-choice members looking for common ground solutions for reducing the number of abortions that are proven to work. New and compelling studies make the clear connection between abortion and poverty, with fully three-fourths of the women who have abortions saying that they just couldn’t afford to have the child. It will be a great day when both poverty reduction and abortion reduction become non-partisan issues and bipartisan causes.

Life is precious. John McCain believes that, Barack Obama believes that, Sarah Palin believes that, and so does Joe Biden. In fact, I’m not sure I have ever met a person who believes otherwise.

Freedom is fundamental. John McCain believes that, Barack Obama believes that, Sarah Palin believes that, and so does Joe Biden. Again, I’m not sure I have ever met a person who believes otherwise.

Americans are for life. Americans are for choice. The challenge for our political leaders, our religious leaders, and every American is to hold freedom and life together even when they seem to collide. We should do all we can to make sure we have as much of both as possible. And we can start by having a better conversation about abortion in this election and beyond. Thankfully, the first steps toward that conversation were taken last evening.

But is abortion reduction the answer? Those in the Emerging Church, and others outside it, firmly believe that it is. Tony Campolo makes this argument in his book, "Red-Letter Christians." The idea is to mix the two worldviews, find common ground, and execute the plan. The emphasis at this stage is on having the "conversation."

But will this conversation ever accomplish anything? How do you convince someone that reducing murder is ok whenever the very idea of murder is repugnant? How do you convince someone that "limits" are the answer whenever the ultimate issue is liberation from limits? Yes, dealing with social and economic causes behind the desire for abortion are helpful and they might reduce the number of abortions, but state-sponsored murder remains.

Here is the problem with trying to find common ground on many issues is, it doesn't solve anything, nor does it bring unity, it only delays the issue. The two are irreconcilable. I will never be satisfied until life is defended by the State. How do you reconcile that with the polar opposite?

Though Wallis' aim might be commendable it is simply naive. The idea that we can all get together, light a candle, sing the Coca-a-Cola theme song and we will solve our problems reveals how blind he is on this issue. It seems that the Emerging Church, as a whole, has compromised their pro-life position, which the vast majority of them seem to hold, in order to support candidates that defend abortion and yet at the same time want to save the planet. It seems, at least to me, such a trend shows that they care more about the planet than the life that populates it.

Do I want reduced abortions? Of course. But that is not enough. Does finding the social and economic causes behind most abortions help reduce them? Of course. But it is not enough.

Even if poverty vanished, raped ceased, incest was nonexistent, and all handicaps were cured, we would still be dealing with the abortion issue. Why? Because the reasons for abortion are deeper than economics and social issues. The real purpose of abortion is that it creates a backup plan that enables one to avoid the consequences of their actions.

We want sex. But we don't want the consequences. And we live in a culture that is absolutely convinced that they can have one without the other. And if one does become pregnant, there is always the option of abortion. "But don't feel bad," we console ourselves, "it's not your fault. Your poor, were raped, the child will be handicap, he/she will keep you from living your dreams, etc."

Again, we return to the Garden narrative. Like the first couple, we are trying to place the blame on something else. We live in an illusion that it is never our fault. It is time that we live in the world that God created. Though mistakes result in unwanted consequences, in this case pregnancy, that does not mean that God's glory is in anyway diminished.

We must return, at this point, to the pro-life view. Because all life is sacred, we know that even those situations that are not ideal, God's glory can still be revealed. A mother uncertain of where the next meal is coming from can still find reason to smile and trust in a God who loves her and has forgiven her whenever her child's first words are "momma!" And a culture that has for so long seen children as a burden can once again return to it's proper understanding that all life is sacred and worthy of life.

God still judges and causes us to bear the burdens of our own consequences. But He is also the God of love and mercy that always finds a way to remind us of His love even whenever we find ourselves broken, confused, and hurting. The gift of life is precious, and that can never be compromised!